Well I guess that comes down to if you believe that you are born with a predetermined personality, have a soul etc. I believe we are born more or less equal but our environment forms us upon how we react.

Yes, environment is a factor, as well as the cumulative nature of choices over time - these influence our personality, behaviour and preferences. Some even claim genetic predisposition/proclivity as a factor.

So everyone has to find it "nice & interesting & catchy" or you feel the compulsion to intervene and label their opinion as 'wrong' ? That's like someone trying to impose their personal & subjective opinion that it is "melodically lame, harmonically boring and relentlessly obnoxious, irritating & grating" on you.

You and newguy1 suffer from the same inability to comprehend and tolerate differing opinions and different reactions to art.

Not everyone has the same frame of reference or judgmental standards, nor is it required they do.

Opinions are not factual statements. They are interpretive, subjective, personal and relative.

He's refuting "sampling" as a singlar factor for dismissing the validity of a song.

No, I don't dislike songs simply due to them containing samples. The thing is, Jason Derulo has undoubtedly had some fairly generic songs, musically speaking. In fact, that's probably a good summary of his discography till now: it's totally average pop. Now this song comes along, and I think, "Wow, Jason is really trying something a bit different, great job!" Then I find out it's just a sample, and that appreciation diminishes. That's why I rated that song poorly. What could have been the special, odd one out sort of song was actually just a straight ripoff.

I really liked the song for it's great beat, oriental flavor, Derulo's singing and the rapping in the end. The song has a unique feel to it IMO and sticks out.
It has been a while for songs like this, if I remember it right Scott Storch had some "orientally flavored" songs.

Anyways, I can understand your reservations regarding sampling and sometimes feel a little disappointed when I find out. Only for a short moment though.
If I liked the song before finding out, why should that change anything?

Last edited by Marquez; 7th March 2014 at 12:18 AM..
Reason: wrong quote, fixed it

I really liked the song for it's great beat, oriental flavor, Derulo's singing and the rapping in the end. The song has a unique feel to it IMO and sticks out.
It has been a while for songs like this, if I remember it right Scott Storch had some "orientally flavored" songs.

Yep, definitely fresh in the context of the last several years of music. Outside of "Don't Wanna Go Home" I think Derulo and his team have made some very good sampling decisions resulting in some really cool hit songs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marquez

Anyways, I can understand your reservations regarding sampling and sometimes feel a little disappointed when I find out. Only for a short moment though.
If I liked the song before finding out, why should that change anything?

I don't have reservations at all, I'm entirely about the end product, process means nothing to me. But I do sympathize with those for whom the process matters, and am aware that when the curtain comes off and the magician reveals his tricks, the audience loses a bit of respect. Its human nature.

I first felt this when I learned a few guitar chords and could suddenly play 80% of the music I liked. It made me like music much less overall for quite some time, and I threw myself into underground dance production scenes mostly focused on interesting sonics without chords. I'm long since over it though, those were my teenage-mid20s years.

Well I guess that comes down to if you believe that you are born with a predetermined personality, have a soul etc. I believe we are born more or less equal but our environment forms us upon how we react.

I don't believe either, really (and why would you think it has something to do with "souls"??)

It has more to do with what taste is functionally--it's simply one's set of preferences, what one likes/dislikes, etc. and what that is ontologically--including where those phenomena ("having a preference for a over b" etc.) occur, as well as what things like meaning are, what it's physically possible to acquire from external sources, etc., and the trivial fact that people have tastes that are not identical to things they've experienced, which would be inexplicable if tastes are identical to something that exists in environments.

That doesn't amount to having a predetermined personality, and I noted that environment influences these things, but environmental phenomena are not the same thing as one's tastes.

I really liked the song for it's great beat, oriental flavor, Derulo's singing and the rapping in the end. The song has a unique feel to it IMO and sticks out.
It has been a while for songs like this, if I remember it right Scott Storch had some "orientally flavored" songs.

Anyways, I can understand your reservations regarding sampling and sometimes feel a little disappointed when I find out. Only for a short moment though. If I liked the song before finding out, why should that change anything?

You make a good point here, and I do in fact like the exotic-ish flavour that the sampled parts add. So I don't want to be misrepresented as that guy who hates all sampling...the fact is that I wouldn't have known the original sampled song if not for Derulo's rendition, so perhaps I jumped a little too quickly to conclusions before. Like newguy mentioned, I definitely see it a bit like the magician revealing his tricks.

I don't have reservations at all, I'm entirely about the end product, process means nothing to me. But I do sympathize with those for whom the process matters, and am aware that when the curtain comes off and the magician reveals his tricks, the audience loses a bit of respect. Its human nature.

I first felt this when I learned a few guitar chords and could suddenly play 80% of the music I liked. It made me like music much less overall for quite some time!

Newguy1, my apologies, I quoted the wrong original post at first but just edited it.

I also don't have any reservations, entirely about the end product. And I also understand if someone does have reservations.

In Highschool, we discussed Brahms Symphony No. 4, movement IV.
Back then (up until I was around 20) I was heavily into classical music, played in many orchestras, and I loved Brahms fourth symphony.
But then we analyzed the fourth movement and learned, that Brahms basically loops the first 8 bars (or 16, don't remember) until the end, for about 10 minutes. He does it with great compositional skills of course, but from that moment on I couldn't enjoy listening to it anymore. The curtain came off and the magic was gone.

You always gotta feel the magic when listening to music. No matter what kind of music, if its magic to you, its all good :-)!

You make a good point here, and I do in fact like the exotic-ish flavour that the sampled parts add. So I don't want to be misrepresented as that guy who hates all sampling...the fact is that I wouldn't have known the original sampled song if not for Derulo's rendition, so perhaps I jumped a little too quickly to conclusions before. Like newguy mentioned, I definitely see it a bit like the magician revealing his tricks.

So are you possibly considering upgrading the previous 'F+' rating you gave it ? Or is the content outside of the sampling not doing enough for you personally ? Just curious.

No. It's really not. Bach was good. Anybody who doesn't see that is either illiterate, an idiot or limited by their previous aesthetic exposure to such a degree that their "opinion" means nothing. Maybe some combination of the above. It's not subjective.

wow.. uh to rewind a bit: i think you can objectively define what makes a good pop song!

recently i spent an evening at a "club" doing all the stuff one does like poppin bottles and twerkin. ok, well i drank and danced, and generally let the club atmosphere sweep me off my feet as it is designed to do.

one thing i always take home when i rarely go to clubs is this: all of the music that bores me on the radio is ****ING AMAZING in the club.

pondering this experience in relation to this thread, i realized some inherent truths about all pop music. i really you can quantify what qualities make a good pop tune, but they don't really have much to do with what some people would like.

1. there are 2 kinds of pop: "dance" and "tender." a good pop song has to succeed in one of these categories.

2. if it is dance, does it have a beat that makes one's booty go? that is literally almost the only requirement.

but the reason it's tricky is that the booty in question is actually quite picky about how fresh this music is. i can't feel dated, because for some reason booty's don't want to move to music that too many previous booty's moved to.
NOTE: a booty doesn't really have a brain, so you can do things like recycle old stuff. this tricks the booty into thinking it's completely fresh and new.

2b. the other requirement for it to be a truly good dance pop song is that the lyrics have to make the average person either agree or giggle. the lyrics in these numbers only serve to give the average person (who is not likely going to clubs that often) a little something else to home in on. something to make the melody a little more digestible. something to mumble to themselves on those long days at work.

3. if it is a tender song, does it pull on ones heartstrings? that is literally the only requirement.

this realm deals with the heart rather than the booty. the heart doesn't mind as much if the music feels dated (piano ballads are timeless) but it does need to identify with the lyrics AND the singer. you can't give luther vandross some bieber lyrics and have it work, because the young girls will feel like someones creepy dad is lecturing them.

4. it kind of goes without saying, but it has to be a solid performance. pop fans (normal people?) get easily distracted by blips in music, so there just can't be anything detracting from the delivery.

so yes, i have basically defined "good" as "functional" here. if i can define good wine this way, why can't i define pop music this way? ..probably the easiest genre to define "good" in actually.

No. It's really not. Bach was good. Anybody who doesn't see that is either illiterate, an idiot or limited by their previous aesthetic exposure to such a degree that their "opinion" means nothing. Maybe some combination of the above. It's not subjective.

This kind of rampant relativism is a disease.

I agree, and what makes it worse is that it's this exact same thing in every thread Carnalia Barcus posts in. It's like he has some kind of bizarre agenda.

Katy Perry is a Hot 100 artist and songwriter. Some of Katy's favorite songs are by Queen, Alanis, Joan J, Garbage, Pat B, and a few contemporaries. Interview a majority of today's Hot 100 artists and songwriters, and you start to uncover a songwriting infrastructure "deeper" than just the current Hot 100. And, Bruno said he "really love's" the Peppers. Anyone else feel better?

No. It's really not. Bach was good. Anybody who doesn't see that is either illiterate, an idiot or limited by their previous aesthetic exposure to such a degree that their "opinion" means nothing. Maybe some combination of the above. It's not subjective.

This kind of rampant relativism is a disease.

About time you chimed in.

I'd rate Bach a little higher than good, or even great, I'd call him (a musical, divinely inspired) God. Without him, there is no American Jazz, or Mozart, or Beethoven, or Brahms or Brian Wilson's Beach Boys, or many many other musical phenoms. Figured bass led to chord-scale relationships, and it could even be claimed that without that there is no songwriting as we know it.

And I respect you countering the rampant relativism.

The only reason I've embraced a tempered relativism, is because of the significance of one's own unique frame of reference when forming musical opinions. I really can't expect someone who is 15 and in a school system which had musical education gutted out of it, bombarded by Bieber, Gaga, Lil Wayne, Kesha, Nicki Minaj, Katy Perry et all as their listening reference points, to even have an informed, enlightened, substantiated opinion. They might not have even ever heard a Bach piece, and if they did (after not acquiring the required precursor) they might be sonically lost in a dense barrage of notes and chordal flux. Too much empathy, maybe.

So I grade on a (slight) curve, trying to balance a firm view, with a more flexible view, taking all factors into consideration.

With that being said, I'd genuinely like to know your opinion/evaluation (maybe with a rating attached ?) on the 5 Billboard tunes posted earlier, if you have the time.

I'd rate Bach a little higher than good, or even great, I'd call him (a musical, divinely inspired) God. Without him, there is no American Jazz, or Mozart, or Beethoven, or Brahms or Brian Wilson's Beach Boys, or many many other musical phenoms. Figured bass led to chord-scale relationships, and it could even be claimed that without that there is no songwriting as we know it.

And I respect you countering the rampant relativism.

The only reason I've embraced a tempered relativism, is because of the significance of one's own unique frame of reference when forming musical opinions. I really can't expect someone who is 15 and in a school system which had musical education gutted out of it, bombarded by Bieber, Gaga, Lil Wayne, Kesha, Nicki Minaj, Katy Perry et all as their listening reference points, to even have an informed, enlightened, substantiated opinion. They might not have even ever heard a Bach piece, and if they did (after not acquiring the required precursor) they might be sonically lost in a dense barrage of notes and chordal flux. Too much empathy, maybe.

So I grade on a (slight) curve, trying to balance a firm view, with a more flexible view, taking all factors into consideration.

With that being said, I'd genuinely like to know your opinion/evaluation (maybe with a rating attached ?) on the 5 Billboard tunes posted earlier, if you have the time.

No. It's really not. Bach was good. Anybody who doesn't see that is either illiterate, an idiot or limited by their previous aesthetic exposure to such a degree that their "opinion" means nothing. Maybe some combination of the above. It's not subjective.

I have sympathy for flutists being deafened by trumpet players in orchestras. The trumpets always kick(blast) their ears. And when the flutist dares to turn around and sneer, even a tad, the trumpet player spit-sprays them. It never fails.

No. It's really not. Bach was good. Anybody who doesn't see that is either illiterate, an idiot or limited by their previous aesthetic exposure to such a degree that their "opinion" means nothing. Maybe some combination of the above. It's not subjective.

This kind of rampant relativism is a disease.

There are both objective and subjective standards.

As soon as context enters the picture, objective qualifiers also enter the picture. You can subjectively hate something and objectively call it good. "I don't like it, but it's amazing for a heavy metal song." Subjective, then objective. In the context of a heavy metal song for a metal audience, it's amazing. In the context of what I personally like, I don't like it. An intelligent person should easily be able to see thing from both perspectives.

For example, I had a piano teacher obsessed with Bach that overloaded me, combined with the organist at my parents church who only played Bach. Subjectively I'm not that interested in ever hearing Bach again and I don't like Bach music, but objectively I call him amazing.

As soon as context enters the picture, objective qualifiers also enter the picture. You can subjectively hate something and objectively call it good. "I don't like it, but it's amazing for a heavy metal song." Subjective, then objective.

That would imply that everyone has to agree with the supposedly objective "Amazing" assessment, lest they be wrong. It then would have to be universally imposed. Some may have found it NOT amazing, due to it being deficient in specific elements (and subsequent development OF those elements) the person was craving at the time.

The description of "Amazing" is clearly subjective because the unique perspective (and preferences) of the uniquely individual listener is always a factor.

That would imply that everyone has to agree with the supposedly objective "Amazing" assessment, lest they be wrong. It then would have to be universally imposed. Some may have found it NOT amazing, due to it being deficient in specific elements (and subsequent development OF those elements) the person was craving at the time.

The description of "Amazing" is clearly subjective because the unique perspective (and preferences) of the uniquely individual listener is always a factor.